We publish an excerpt from a
transcript of remarks delivered by former Western
Standard publisher Ezra Levant before the
Alberta Human Rights Commission in Calgary on Jan.
11.

"HUMAN RIGHTS" VS. MAGNA CARTA *

by Ezra Levant

My name is Ezra Levant. Before this government
interrogation begins, I will make a statement. When the
Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of
Muhammad two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the
proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again
today. In fact, I did do it again today. Though the
Western Standard, sadly, no longer publishes a print
edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my
website,
ezralevant.com.

I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is
my position that the government has no legal or moral authority
to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and
pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable
freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press and, in this
case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state.

It is especially
perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta Human
Rights Commission would be the government agency violating my
human rights. So I will now call those bureaucrats "the
commission" or "the HRC," since to call the commission a "human
rights commission" is to destroy the meaning of those words.

I believe that this
commission has no proper authority over me. The commission was
meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles
about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant
felt that their race or sex was the reason they were
discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with
deeds, not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded
by a secular government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all
backgrounds, is taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the
views of radical Islam. So much for the separation of mosque and
state.

I have read the past few
years' worth of decisions from this commission, and it is clear
that it has become a dump for the junk that gets rejected from
the real legal system. I read one case where a male hair salon
student complained that he was called a "loser" by the girls in
the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this.
Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who
complained that it was against her rights to be fired. The
commission actually agreed with her, and forced the restaurant
to pay her $4,900.

In other words, the
commission is a joke – it's the Alberta equivalent of a U.S.
television pseudo-court like Judge Judy – except that Judge Judy
actually was a judge, whereas none of the commissions'
panellists are judges, and some aren't even lawyers. And, unlike
the commission, Judge Judy believes in freedom of speech.

It's bad enough that this
sick joke is being wreaked on hair salons and restaurants. But
it's even worse now that the commissions are attacking free
speech.

That's my first point:
The commissions have leapt out of the small cage they were
confined to, and are now attacking our fundamental freedoms.

"For a government
bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an
interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious
expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a
Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a
Charter of Rights."

As
Alan Borovoy, Canada's leading civil libertarian, a man who
helped form these commissions in the 1960s and 1970s, wrote,
in specific reference to our magazine, being a censor is "hardly
the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions.
There should be no question of the right to publish the
impugned cartoons." Since the commission is so obviously out
of control, he said "It would be best, therefore, to change
the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such
ambiguities of interpretation."

The commission has no
legal authority to act as censor. It is not in their
statutory authority. They're just making it up – even Alan
Borovoy says so.

But even if the
commissions had some statutory fig leaf for their attempts
at political and religious censorship, it would still be
unlawful and unconstitutional.

We have a heritage
inherited from Great Britain that goes back to the year 1215
and Magna Carta. We have a heritage of 800 years of British
common law protection for speech, augmented by 250 years of
common law in Canada.

That common law has been
restated in various fundamental documents, especially since
the Second World War. In 1948, the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a party,
declared that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion
and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers."

The 1960 Canadian Bill of
Rights guaranteed: "human rights and fundamental freedoms,
namely: (c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e)
freedom of assembly and association; and (f ) freedom of the
press."

In 1982, the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed that "Everyone has
the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of
conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief,
opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and
other media of communication."

Those were even called "fundamental
freedoms" – to give them extra importance.

For a government
bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an
interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious
expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a
Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a
Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values,
not Canadian values.

It is also deeply
procedurally one-sided and unjust. The complainant doesn't
have to pay a penny; Alberta taxpayers pay for the
prosecution of the complaint against me. The victims of the
complaints, like the Western Standard, have to pay for their
own lawyers from their own pockets. Even if we win, we lose
– the process has become the punishment.

Unlike in real courts,
there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance
lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don't apply. Rules of
court don't apply. It is a system that is part Kafka, and
part Stalin. Even this interrogation today – at which I
appear under duress – saw the commission tell me who I could
or could not bring with me as my counsel and advisors.

I have no faith in this
farcical commission. But I do have faith in the justice and
good sense of my fellow Albertans and Canadians. I believe
that the better they understand this case, the more shocked
they will be. I am here under your compulsion to answer the
commission's questions. But it is not I who am on trial: It
is the freedom of all Canadians.

You may start your
interrogation.

It is clear that the
Human Rights Commission has become a dump for the junk that
gets rejected from the real legal system.

* Transcript first published in the
National Post on January 15, 2008.